Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The confirm-gating behavior is genuinely useful, but it is already spelled out in the confirm parameter's schema description, so it adds little beyond structured data. With destructiveHint=true already declared, the remaining gap is what disconnection actually entails (irreversibility, effect on DNS/SSL, required permissions), which is not covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short clauses with the action front-loaded and the key gating caveat parenthesized immediately after; nothing wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the gating but omits what an agent needs to reason about consequences: whether the domain can be reconnected, and that success/failure is the only return signal. Just enough to call it, not enough to call it safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single confirm parameter is fully documented in the schema; the description merely restates the confirm: true requirement. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the parameter work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (disconnect) and resource (the coach's custom domain), which clearly distinguishes it from connect_my_custom_domain and get_my_custom_domain. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling remove_gym_custom_domain, so scope differentiation for the gym variant is left implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the name and the confirm-gate note; there is no statement of when to prefer this over remove_gym_custom_domain or what prerequisites exist (e.g. an active custom domain must be connected). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.